A country uses absolute power in directing the path of a society.

To attain
societal goals and objectives, a country uses complete political coerciveness,
which may come in the form of armed personnel, stricter laws, and rigid
governmental policies.
As country consist of actors with varying interests and assertions, social
rules are implemented in the form of laws. These laws are created to manage the
interaction among individuals and between the individuals and the country. As a
citizen of a country, an individual is subjected to the legal norms in the territory.
These norms may include paying taxes, rendering military service, and contributing
to the political life in the society. For example, in the event of war, citizens may be
required to render military service for their country.
Being a citizen of a country also entails the enjoyment of certain privileges
that are labelled as rights. There are two types of rights that are enjoyed by
individuals as members of state: natural and legal. Natural rights are those that are
derived from the basic elements of individual being humans. Some of these rights
include the right of life, the right to liberty or freedom, and the right to property.
Legal rights are those that are awarded to an individual by the state as part of its
culture, traditions, and norms.

Crime is any action or offence that defies a state or country and is

punishable by law. Crime has many definitions. In fact, the most common thing
about these definitions is that crime is punishable. Crime cuts across many
disciplines such as sociology, psychology and criminology. Each of these
disciplines try to explain why crime is committed and how people are compelled to
commit crime, a good example is sociology. Sociology attributes crime due to poor
socialization in society, while psychology attributes crime mainly due to biological
and Pathological criminogenic behaviors. Many scholars have tried to define crime
and each has given many reasons why crime is committed. Scholars such Cesare
Lombroso attribute crime to biological anomalies while scholars like Edwin
Sutherland claim that criminal behavior is learned.
Generally, all these come, to the same conclusions that crime is an offence
punishable by law. There are two main types of crime, these include violent crimes
and property crime. Violent crime constitutes when someone decides to harm,
threaten and conspire against someone else while property crime constitute
someone who damages, destroys or steals someone’s property. Both violent and
property crimes are offences which involve force and damage to society. There
are different types of punishing crime, the most common typologies are retribution,
restorative justice, general and specific deterrence, rehabilitation and just deserts.
Crime punishment has been there since the beginning of time, the oldest
type of punishment was retribution. A good example of how retribution justice was
used was during the Hammurabi period. In those days if crime was committed it
constituted an eye for an eye. If I killed someone my punishment would be death.
No one was spared. Justice was viewed differently. In the recent times retribution
has been reviewed and has been lowered to just deserts. The punishment is still
harsh but considers many factors at hand, such as the state of mind of the offender.
Crime has been there for a long time and has been defined and been punished in
different ways. What constitutes a crime has also been reviewed? What was
viewed a crime in the previous times is not a crime now. A good example is
freedom of worship. Many people were not allowed to worship any other gods and
did it secrecy due to fear of prosecution and being labeled a heretic. In present
times one is allowed to worship any god and believe in whoever they please.
 Generally, crime is a wide topic and has been vigorously studied in different
aspects but in this essay, I am going to focus mainly on the major objectives of
crime prevention, typologies of crime reduction, law enforcement and crime,
recidivism of crime and interventions on reduction of crime.
Crime prevention includes reducing and deterring crime and criminals from
committing crimes. Crime reduction is quite similar to crime prevention, for crime
reduction to occur we need to prevent it at first. Crime prevention strategies are
usually implemented by criminal justice agencies, individuals, businesses and non-
governmental agencies in order to maintain order and enforce the law. Crime
prevention strategies not only deter crime but also reduce the risk of increasing
victimization in the society. Crime prevention has many objectives but the most
main objective is to reduce and deter crime. Many criminal justice agencies have
developed strategies through public policy in order to prevent crime. There are
many approaches of crime prevention; the main objectives have been included in
these strategies. These strategies are situational crime prevention strategy,
environmental crime prevention, social crime prevention, developmental crime
prevention, policing strategies, and community crime prevention strategies.

Situational crime prevention strategy was a concept that gained wide

recognition in the late 1940’s when Edwin in Sutherland argued that crime was a
result of environmental factors. He believed that crime was learned. Situational
crime prevention strategy is deeply rooted in theories such as routine activity
theory, crime pattern theory and rational choice theory. Situational crime
prevention strategy focuses on mainly reducing crime by providing settings in
which it is less conducive for criminals to attack. Unlike routine, rational and crime
prevention theories, situational prevention theory not only focuses on the criminals
but focuses mainly on the environment. A good example of how criminal justice
agencies have applied this strategy is by ensuring that their heavy surveillance in
the cities in order to deter criminals from committing crimes. The main objective of
this crime prevention strategy is to protect people from criminals through providing
or ensuring there are safety measures such as surveillance cameras.
Social crime prevention is a strategy that addresses the direct root causes
of crime. The main objective of social crime prevention is on the social elements
that have lead people to commit these crimes, these elements may include
breakdown in family values and ignorance. Lack of cohesion and environmental
conditions. Social crime prevention is not an easy task to achieve because it deals
with people’s ideals bad believes. The only way to create a society that is peaceful
is to start from the beginning. This means ensuring that schooling from young age
is given much importance. A good example of how governments have done this is
by ensuring that the curriculum in nursery schools teaches children values of what
wrong and what is right. There are many ways of how social crime prevention can
be achieved, through changing values at home through public education and
encouraging the community to be the agent of social change in their own
communities.

Developmental crime prevention focuses on how crime occurs; the main

objective of this strategy is show how crime develops and causes victimization in
society. Developmental crime prevention strategy is used by many countries.
Public education is one of the approaches that have been used. By using public
education many people are taught and developed in to young abiding citizens
rather than criminals. Communities may also focus on helping teachers to be an
integral part in developing self-control in young people. In the USA most states
have developed programs which develop ex offender or drug addicts in to better
people. They engage in social programs and help them achieve GEDS in order to
get a better life. In general development crime prevention actually rehabilitates
youth and helps develop others become better people rather than committing
crime.
 Policing strategies are also crucial in crime prevention. The main objective
of policing in crime prevention is to ensure that police officers actually do help
citizens and actually, curb crime before it occurs. Policing should be proactive.
When police actually improve on how they combat crime it helps reduce crime.
Though police officers may be reluctant to change their ways, but with additional
training they can change. In order to reduce crime policing should be an important
aspect. Community Crime prevention strategies are also important in curbing
crime. The main objective of this strategy is to ensure that the community and
police actually work together in order to prevent crime. By the community being
involved in everything it helps reduce crime. Most countries have actually adopted
this model. By the community and the police being involved it helps curb crime
because the police are not working alone but are working hand in hand to ensure
safety. Community crime prevention strategy can be very effective if the
relationship between the citizen and the police is cordial. If it is not, this approach
can be very hard to achieve.

By societies using all these models of crime prevention, reduction of crime

actually occurs. Crime reduction cannot occur if the government and criminal
justice agencies are not doing anything about it. If you look at countries that have
high crime, the criminal justice agency and government are weak, and corruption
is common. Such countries are run by cartels who engage in organized crime.
Organized crime also tends to be present in countries that have strong criminal
justice systems, but the difference between the two is that they are not strong as
they are in failed states or weak countries. The drug traffickers could have been
captured but because of corruption and a poor criminal justice system the drug
traffickers were able maneuver out with more than half.

Crime prevention and limitations

Crime analysis is understood as the systematic study of crime and disorder
problems as well as other police-related issues. It is important to include
sociodemographic, spatial, and mundane factors to assist in criminal
apprehension, crime reduction, and crime prevention. It is used primarily as
information so that personnel, from patrol officers to police chiefs, have an idea of
when and where crime is occurring and how much it has overall occurred. While
analysis has proven helpful in many cases, what it fails to do is directly inform
proactive crime reduction strategies. This is because police officers are limited in
dealing with prevention. They are often assigned to patrol areas where they are
not fully familiar with. They may not fully understand the social structure and norms
that fuel the neighborhood and the actions of its residents.
While crime analysis was once focused primarily on tactical issues of identifying
offenders, discrimination and stereotyping led to social unrest and led to other
tactics of crime prevention. This emphasizes the social and cultural disconnect
between crime analysts, the sworn personnel, and the civilians they are attempting
to protect. These became a blurred line between the officers’ role of protecting and
harassing innocent civilians. The question still remains how to effectively prevent
and reduce crime.
Crime analysis and crime mapping are becoming more common, but they are
primarily implemented in larger police agencies. Areas that have statistically
needed more protection have been given more policing depending on the capacity
of the police in the district. For example, it is argued that there is a need for more
policing in urban areas because that is where crime is usually more prevalent, but
that leaves other low population, yet crime ridden areas with less assistance.
Despite this all, policing is occasionally being shifted to focus more on ‘hot spots,’
areas where crime is more prevalent. The close monitoring has of an extent been
able to deter crime, but that again depends on the stance of the offender and what
they have to lose from their potential criminal transaction.
 Do they work?
While in an ideal world all crime prevention efforts would work, that is not the case
in the society that we live in today. Crime and its prevention vary depending on the
environment of where the crime is happening. The demographics, the
socioeconomic status of the people, and the relationships within the community all
factor into crime and its prevention. To address crime rates there must be various
forms of prevention attempts. From the research conducted, it is evident that
incarceration is limited in its effectiveness of crime prevention and reduction. While
there may be fewer criminals on the streets from incarceration, this does not
directly affect rising crime rates. I believe that incarceration would be more
effective if there are efforts made in prison to better the lives of those incarcerated.
Through efforts such as education, creating job skills and community buildings,
those incarcerated are less likely to return to their former criminal past. This has
the ability to create crime prevention and reduction in the long run. I also believe
that random patrol and reactive arrests used responses to a community’s demand
are generally effective, policing in areas where crime is more prevalent makes it
easier to identify problems within a community. It develops tailored responses in a
timely manner so that crime can be controlled, reduced, and prevented.

I see various issues in maintaining prevention, the main one being

sustainability. Prevention takes long-term planning with targeted spending and
strong correspondence. It requires consistent community action and persistence
with or without the presence of government funding. Without flexibility crime cannot
be prevented or reduced. Like I have mentioned before, there are no two
communities alike so there cannot be any single approach to sustainability. It is up
to the individual communities and organizations to determine appropriate
strategies and implement them. I agree with the World Health Organization and
the understanding that creating and implementing and monitoring a national action
plan for violence prevention would be effective. In order to do so, the issues of
funding must be addressed. I believe that the federal and local government should
invent in testing method of policing in order to raise awareness and reduce crime.
To keep time rates low, there is a need to enhance the capacity of data collection
on violence. That way, the issues that need to be addressed are apparent. When
looking at issues and crimes within a community, it is important to examine the
causes. Consequences and costs for prevention as well as reduction.
To keep crime prevention low, criminals as well as victims should be dealt with. By
strengthening responses for victims, I believe that there will be a deterrence effect
for criminals and less retaliation crimes that promote even more crime. I also
believe that integrating crime prevention into social and educational policies has
the ability to reduce crime by promoting social equality.

While a number of heinous crimes have been committed by individuals high

on drugs – little girls raped and killed, or mothers murdered by their sons, for
example – many more can be traced to poverty.

Drugs of course can cause a lot of other problems apart from violent crime.
In our country, it’s a source of corruption, and there’s a real danger that drug money
may be used to win political support. Some of the most notorious drug convicts ran
their operations when they were barangay officials. Drug convicts continue to
corrupt personnel at the National Penitentiary.

Duterte must be aware of reports that communist rebels are also suspected
of raising funds from either protecting marijuana plantations or growing cannabis
themselves. Colombian rebel groups also do the same with coca plantations.
 Drugs can also fry the brains of youths, with the damage often permanent.
Parents of such youths will probably support Duterte’s tough stance on drugs.

Public anger is rising in the Philippines over the reported surge of

extrajudicial killings that have victimized several children and teenagers.

Duterte’s “war on drugs” has been controversial from the very beginning,
since it allegedly involved the extrajudicial killing of suspected drug peddlers and
users. The anti-drug operation (Oplan Tokhang) has already killed 7,000 persons,
but some human rights groups think that the number of drug-related killings could
reach 12,000 if we are going to include the unreported cases.

Police officials have consistently claimed that rival drug gangs are behind
the extrajudicial killings. They also insisted that state forces are only forced to
retaliate because suspects have been violently resisting arrests.

Aside from making Tokhang the top priority of his government, Duterte is
accused of abetting impunity by vowing to protect cops who kill drug suspects.

Early in 2017, the killing of a Korean businessman inside a police camp and
the backlash it generated forced the government to suspend Tokhang. But in a
matter of weeks, the killings resumed in poor urban communities.

Duterte’s SONA speech worried many because it was believed that it could
lead to more drug-related deaths instead of addressing the demand of human
rights groups and the international community to rethink the methods of Tokhang.

And as if on cue, police intensified Tokhang operations and produced a

record number of killings in a matter of days. A Tokhang operation on a single night
killed 32 drug suspects in Bulacan province and 26 in the capital Manila. Duterte
praised this operation. “Thirty-two were killed in a massive raid in Bulacan. That is
good. If we could kill 32 every day, then maybe we could reduce what ails this
country,” he said in a media interview.

But the media also reported that a 17-year-old student was killed by the
police during a Tokhang-related arrest in Caloocan, a northern suburb of Manila.
Later, CCTV footage of the crime scene showed a boy being dragged by the police
which convinced many that the Tokhang operation killed another innocent person.
The police were loudly condemned for this atrocity. Duterte, too, was blamed for
inciting police abuse.

The media reminded the public that this is not the first time that a minor was
killed in a Tokhang operation. In fact, 54 children have been killed already since
2016.

The Senate conducted a probe of the incident; the powerful Catholic Church
issued a strong statement against drug-related killings; the opposition pinned the
blame on Duterte’s aggressive brand of leadership; and a funeral protest was held
to dramatize the clamor for justice amid the spate of extrajudicial killings.
 Sensing a shift in public opinion about Tokhang, Duterte modified his stance
by vowing to punish rogue cops.

Public anger has yet to subside when a similar Tokhang case was reported
by the media. This was followed by more news reports highlighting the tortured
bodies of teenagers who allegedly died while under police custody.

Duterte seemed baffled by the reports and accused sinister forces of trying
to sabotage the government’s anti-drug campaign. But Duterte’s problem is his
refusal to acknowledge that the main problem is the framework of Tokhang itself.
The obsession for quick results to end the drug menace, plus the alleged bounty
for every dead drug operator, probably fueled the brutal killings in poor
communities.

Compounding Duterte’s woes is the extrajudicial killing of a Lumad

(indigenous people) teenager in a militarized community in Mindanao, where
Martial Law remains in effect. The issue exposed the bloody legacy of Duterte’s
decision to launch an “all-out war” against communist rebels instead of pursuing
peace talks.

Some believe the issue of human rights abuses involving children is aimed
at distracting the attention of the public after a Senate probe implicated Duterte’s
son in the shipment of illegal drugs in the country’s ports. It may be true. But it
does not invalidate the urgent demands to rethink Tokhang, to probe and punish
police abuse, and to make Duterte accountable for the worsening human rights
violations that are taking place across the country.
 International human rights law lays down obligations which States are
bound to respect. By becoming parties to international treaties, States assume
obligations and duties under international law to respect, to protect and to fulfil
human rights. The obligation to respect means that States must refrain from
interfering with or curtailing the enjoyment of human rights. The obligation to
protect requires States to protect individuals and groups against human rights
abuses. The obligation to fulfil means that States must take positive action to
facilitate the enjoyment of basic human rights.

Through ratification of international human rights treaties, Governments

undertake to put into place domestic measures and legislation compatible with
their treaty obligations and duties. The domestic legal system, therefore, provides
the principal legal protection of human rights guaranteed under international law.
Where domestic legal proceedings fail to address human rights abuses,
mechanisms and procedures for individual and group complaints are available at
the regional and international levels to help ensure that international human rights
standards are indeed respected, implemented, and enforced at the local level.

The role of the Commission on Human Rights is to protect and promote

human rights. It is the main office in the United Nations that deals with human
rights and it works to ensure that human rights standards are applied in all of the
UN's activities. It collaborates with governments to strengthen their human rights
capabilities, encourages states to develop policies and institutions that are
conducive to human rights, and provides advice and technical assistance to
achieve these goals.

The human rights situation in the Philippines became an issue in recent

years with reports of rising number of victims of extra-judicial killings, prompting
the United Nations to take action. The Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial,
summary or arbitrary executions.

Local and international human rights organizations launched campaigns on

the extra-judicial killings issue, demanding accountability for those involved in the
killings. Media organizations in the Philippines and their international counterparts
also campaigned to stop the killing of members of the media.

The Philippine human rights situation is not however limited to the issue of
extrajudicial killings and disappearances. The country faces problems related to
its political, economic, social and cultural conditions that breed many more human
rights problems.

The concept may be problematic in the Philippines but human rights are a
vital component of most modern democracies.

Human rights allow a person to live with dignity and in peace, away from
the abuses that can be inflicted by abusive institutions or individuals. But the fact
remains that there are rampant human rights violations around the world.

The rights of Filipinos can be found in Article III of the 1987 Philippine
Constitution. Also called the Bill of Rights, it includes 22 sections which declare a
Filipino citizen’s rights and privileges that the Constitution has to protect, no matter
what.
 Aside from various local laws, human rights in the Philippines are also
guided by the UN's International Bill of Human Rights – a consolidation of 3 legal
documents including the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), the
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), and the International
Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights (ICESCR).

As one of the signatories of these legal documents, the Philippines is

obliged to recognize and apply appropriate laws to ensure each right’s fulfillment.

This is not always the case, however, as the Philippine Constitution lacks
explicit laws to further cement specific human rights in the local context.

Human rights are both rights and obligations, according to the UN. The state
– or the government – is obliged to “respect, protect, and fulfill” these rights.

Respect begets commitment from state that no law should be made to

interfere or curtail the fulfillment of the stated human rights. Protecting means that
human rights violations should be prevented and if they exist, immediate action
should be made.

In the Philippines, the Commission on Human Rights (CHR) primarily

handles the investigations of human rights violations. However, it has no power to
resolve issues as stated in the Supreme Court decision in 1991.

Aside from investigations, it also provides assistance and legal measures

for the protection of human rights guided by Section 18 Article XIII of the Philippine
Constitution.

Criminals or those in conflict with the law are still protected by rights as
indicated in many legal documents such as the Philippines’ Criminal Code and
UN’s Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners.

Specific human rights, however, may be removed, provided they go through

due process beforehand.

The Philippine human rights situation still requires a careful monitoring

regarding the resolution of specific human rights cases within available limited
resources as well as the holistic/comprehensive approach in addressing many
other human rights violations.

No country has the capacity to stop all human rights violations but there is
justified expectation that any government has enough resources to do substantial
measures to address the situation as long as it has the political will to do so.

Human Rights Watch field research found that government claims that the
deaths of suspected drug users and dealers were lawful were blatant falsehoods.
That research paints a chilling portrait of mostly impoverished urban slum dwellers
being gunned down in state-sanctioned “death squad” operations that demolish
rule of law protections. Interviews with witnesses and victims’ relatives and
analysis of police records expose a pattern of unlawful police conduct designed to
paint a veneer of legality over extrajudicial executions that may amount to crimes
against humanity. Our investigations revealed that police routinely kill drug
suspects in cold blood and then cover up their crimes by planting drugs and guns
at the scene.
While the Philippine National Police have publicly sought to distinguish
between suspects killed while resisting arrest and killings by “unknown gunmen”
or “vigilantes,” Human Rights Watch found no such distinction in the cases
investigated. In several such cases, the police dismissed allegations of
involvement when only hours before the suspects had been in police custody.
Such cases call into question government assertions that most killings have been
carried out by vigilantes or rival drug gangs.
 Enforcement of International Human Rights must prevail because life
is important, our own life is important. But at the same time, because life is
important, our own life is not important. Life is extremely precious and holy, and
thus one cannot treat matters of life and death lightly. For that reason, I forbid acts
that result in "mercy killing" or that grant the "right to end life." Until the moment of
natural death, every second that the soul is in the body is inestimably valuable —
not just to the body, but to the Filipino people and the world as a whole. Summary
or extra-judicial executions of criminals or suspects are prohibited under the
Philippine Constitution as these violate several sections such as Article III Section
1, which states that “no person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without
due process of law nor shall any person be denied the equal protection of the
laws."

It added that summary executions as a violation of human rights are more

explicit in Article II of Section 11, which provides that “the State values the dignity
of every human person and guarantees full respect for human rights."

Meanwhile, Section 19 of the Bill of Rights clearly states that any

punishment against a prisoner or detainee shall be dealt with by law and through
due process. It also says that no “cruel, degrading or inhuman punishment” may
be inflicted – even death.

Duterte’s war on drugs is the clear catalyst for today’s sporadic killings that
have victimized mostly the poor. The President’s bevy of supporters has seen
nothing wrong with the death of alleged drug users and peddlers, claiming it is a
strategy in the right direction, an effective means to cleanse our society of the evils
of illegal drugs.

Unfortunately, even the innocent became victims of this cleansing. They are
referred to as collateral damages whose deaths could only move the President to
say “sorry” and nothing more to protect their kind. Unsympathetic, he declared
stoically that for as long as there are illegal drug users, pushers, manufacturers,
and protectors of drug syndicates, killings will continue relentlessly and without let-
up. Clearly, the President is not deterred from employing this approach even if
threatened with cases of human rights violations and crimes against humanity and
at the cost of many lives.

Life has a story of its own. It is sacred not only in the eyes of the Church;
even the State with its laws recognize its value. The Constitution and our civil laws
have provisions that seek to protect it. Unfortunately, we understand life today
simply from the point of view of drug use and criminality, such that drug dependents
must die and criminals ought to be killed too. The necessity of redemption is not
applicable to them for they will no longer change or at the very least, be converted.
Criminals and drug dependents don’t have humanity, hence, laws that uphold a
human being’s dignity, regardless of its status and quality, do not apply to them.

So, the barbarity and impunity with which killings are carried out no longer
affect our society’s moral consciousness. We are slowly losing that sense of right
and wrong simply because the State insists that killing criminals will stave off our
society’s collapse. In true Kantian fashion, Duterte insists that he is duty-bound to
save our country from utter destruction, hence, he is justified to use any means
just to avert it. Therefore, swift elimination of alleged criminals is right regardless
of civil law provisions and moral norms that say the contrary.
 While Duterte believers applaud each and every killing in the streets, his
critics, including the Church and adherents of human rights, continue to insist on
following at least the “letters of the law” which visibly spell out the need for due
process, equal protection, right to life, and the upholding of human dignity.

Cases of death thru police operations should be investigated. There’s a

need for just and swift solution to these. If allowed to go on, it makes our
government institutions inutile and public safety in question.

Lastly, our government should not mock our legal systems for it will erode
public trust. It should rather strengthen and increase accountability thru strict
application of laws. As one human rights advocate said, “the war on drugs is a war
against our legal systems”.

Our State institutions and government systems must operate within the
bounds of our legal and moral norms, otherwise the Filipino psyche will thoroughly
be haunted by the ghost of the past when human rights were not given their due.
And then many more people would meet their senseless death!